Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Pondera »

Dhammavamsa wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:46 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:29 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:25 am

When you study Buddhist history you realise that we reenact many of them on this page ;)
I apologize. I’ve read the Theravada - Pugalavada arguments on “Self”. Don’t make me post them here. They’re utterly ridiculous - following a formulaic standard which repeats itself letter after letter with the arguments transversed. It’s nearly unreadable.

I am a very analytic type. I majored in Math. I have a firm understanding of formal logic. The type of argument displayed between the Theravada and Pugalavada Sects on the existence of the self is a tiresome bore that could benefit from a little hardcore ad hominem.
Abhidhamma Pitaka is the analytical part of the Dhamma. It dissects the concepts such as aggregates, types of kamma, definition and underlying meaning of phrase that mentioned in the Suttas. Furthermore, Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries were accepted by the Arahants since the ancient times with the original orthodox Mahasangha (Theravada). The other schools that split themselves from Theravada were schismatic and of no Arahants at all.

You are majored in maths and with logic thinking, yet you find Abhidhamma boring. I wonder how your profession has anything to do with Pariyatti. To me, this is just like putting SJW stuff in a military recruitment ad like what USA did recently.
Wow. Even though I haven’t the slightest clue what you’re going on about, I find that very offensive.

If anything, the Buddha’s words are the theorems, lemmas and conjectures of wisdom.

The abhidamma is an attempt of proof.

Like a mathematical proof. Like the proof of Fermats last Theorem.

I will NEVER understand that proof. However, I can appreciate the simple fact that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than 2.

Keep in mind that we can thank Andrew Wiles for his one hundred page proof of this fact.

And yet, what would it be compared to the margin that was too small for Fermat to scribble in his “simple and elegant” proof to the same effect??!!

Ie. abhidamma is not the simplest and most direct proof of the Buddha’s teachings.

The fact that every line I have read of it instantly bores me to tears is indication enough for ME that by not reading it I am saving what precious little time I have this earth.

Sujato - a Pali scholar - admits that learning the abhidamma at one point in his life meant having to unlearn it at a later point in his life.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Pondera »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:26 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:25 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:23 am

You don't take refuge in a vāda. I do however take refuge in the Noble Sangha.
Oh really. And in what country did you do this?
The United Kingdom.
Oh. Dear me. I thought you were bluffing. No wonder you’re so on and on about the subject. We have a bonified Buddhist layman here.

Well guess what? I haven’t masturbated in over two years! Ha!!!!
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Pondera »

It’s now 3:00 am Pacific Standard Time.

I’d like to acknowledge all the members here. Each one of you have a place in the part of my heart that appreciates things. And I have no beef with any of you.

I’d be a pretty uncool 40 year old man if I couldn’t (at once) value my own set of beliefs while also acknowledging that others have their own.

Good night. And good riddance ;) :rolleye:
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:39 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:28 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:23 am Aha. And yet you must still convince us that the Abhidamma isn’t a pile of useless lists
Please tell us in detail what happens in a moment of cognition?
Oh. You want to get into “cognition”? That’s a laugh. Let’s look at the suttas. He tastes “bitter” he tastes “sweet” he tastes “pungent” he tastes “bland”. That is why they call it “cognition”.

Funny right? Well that is exactly what the Buddha said about “cognition”. What did he say about “perception”?

He perceives red. He perceives blue. Yellow. White. Thus it is called perception.

Probably not what you were looking for? Okay. I’ll take the bait.

Cognition of what? Let’s take something useful.

Cognition of the three marks upon the skhanda of perception.

A perception independently arises from an external object creating friction upon another external object. We call this “sound”. The mind cognizes “sound”. Within the “sound” the mind further cognizes further realities. It cognizes the mark of ill. It cognizes the mark of impermanence. It cognizes the mark of not-self. The sound disintergarates and the mind in samadhi turns it’s attention to other skhandas as they arise, persist, and fade.

So long as the mind has a sense object to perceive - cognition attaches to that object.

If it attaches with wisdom - it views that perceptual object as ill, impermanent, and not self.

If it attaches with lust - it views it as pleasant, permanent and self.

If it attaches with hate - it views it as painful, a lasting affliction, an approbation of ones self

If it attaches with delusion - it disregards it’s features entirely.
I think it's worthwhile to compare this to what we find in the Abhidhamma, the commentaries and the Visuddhimagga.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Pondera »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:10 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:39 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:28 am

Please tell us in detail what happens in a moment of cognition?
Oh. You want to get into “cognition”? That’s a laugh. Let’s look at the suttas. He tastes “bitter” he tastes “sweet” he tastes “pungent” he tastes “bland”. That is why they call it “cognition”.

Funny right? Well that is exactly what the Buddha said about “cognition”. What did he say about “perception”?

He perceives red. He perceives blue. Yellow. White. Thus it is called perception.

Probably not what you were looking for? Okay. I’ll take the bait.

Cognition of what? Let’s take something useful.

Cognition of the three marks upon the skhanda of perception.

A perception independently arises from an external object creating friction upon another external object. We call this “sound”. The mind cognizes “sound”. Within the “sound” the mind further cognizes further realities. It cognizes the mark of ill. It cognizes the mark of impermanence. It cognizes the mark of not-self. The sound disintergarates and the mind in samadhi turns it’s attention to other skhandas as they arise, persist, and fade.

So long as the mind has a sense object to perceive - cognition attaches to that object.

If it attaches with wisdom - it views that perceptual object as ill, impermanent, and not self.

If it attaches with lust - it views it as pleasant, permanent and self.

If it attaches with hate - it views it as painful, a lasting affliction, an approbation of ones self

If it attaches with delusion - it disregards it’s features entirely.
I think it's worthwhile to compare this to what we find in the Abhidhamma, the commentaries and the Visuddhimagga.
Please do. Start a new thread if you please. And feel free to direct me to the appropriate texts.

I’ll read them at a later date. For now I need my beauty rest. If I don’t go to sleep now, I might not get my usual ten hours ;)
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:39 am [

Oh. You want to get into “cognition”? That’s a laugh. Let’s look at the suttas. He tastes “bitter” he tastes “sweet” he tastes “pungent” he tastes “bland”. That is why they call it “cognition”.

Funny right? Well that is exactly what the Buddha said about “cognition”. What did he say about “perception”?

He perceives red. He perceives blue. Yellow. White. Thus it is called perception.

Probably not what you were looking for? Okay. I’ll take the bait.

Cognition of what? Let’s take something useful.

Cognition of the three marks upon the skhanda of perception.

A perception independently arises from an external object creating friction upon another external object. We call this “sound”. The mind cognizes “sound”. Within the “sound” the mind further cognizes further realities. It cognizes the mark of ill. It cognizes the mark of impermanence. It cognizes the mark of not-self. The sound disintergarates and the mind in samadhi turns it’s attention to other skhandas as they arise, persist, and fade.

I’ll just leave this here:
And tradition has it that those bhikkhus only who know Abhidhamma are true preachers of the Dhamma; the rest, though they speak on the Dhamma, are not preachers thereof. And why? They, in speaking on the Dhamma, confuse the different kinds of Kamma and of its results, the distinction between mind and matter, and the different kinds of states. The students of Abhidhamma do not thus get confused; hence a bhikkhu who knows Abhidhamma, whether he preaches the Dhamma or not, will be able to answer questions whenever asked. He alone, therefore, is a true preacher of the Dhamma.
- The Expositor (Atthasālinī).
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Dhammavamsa
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 3:57 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Dhammavamsa »

Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:00 am
Dhammavamsa wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:46 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:29 am

I apologize. I’ve read the Theravada - Pugalavada arguments on “Self”. Don’t make me post them here. They’re utterly ridiculous - following a formulaic standard which repeats itself letter after letter with the arguments transversed. It’s nearly unreadable.

I am a very analytic type. I majored in Math. I have a firm understanding of formal logic. The type of argument displayed between the Theravada and Pugalavada Sects on the existence of the self is a tiresome bore that could benefit from a little hardcore ad hominem.
Abhidhamma Pitaka is the analytical part of the Dhamma. It dissects the concepts such as aggregates, types of kamma, definition and underlying meaning of phrase that mentioned in the Suttas. Furthermore, Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries were accepted by the Arahants since the ancient times with the original orthodox Mahasangha (Theravada). The other schools that split themselves from Theravada were schismatic and of no Arahants at all.

You are majored in maths and with logic thinking, yet you find Abhidhamma boring. I wonder how your profession has anything to do with Pariyatti. To me, this is just like putting SJW stuff in a military recruitment ad like what USA did recently.
Wow. Even though I haven’t the slightest clue what you’re going on about, I find that very offensive.

If anything, the Buddha’s words are the theorems, lemmas and conjectures of wisdom.

The abhidamma is an attempt of proof.

Like a mathematical proof. Like the proof of Fermats last Theorem.

I will NEVER understand that proof. However, I can appreciate the simple fact that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than 2.

Keep in mind that we can thank Andrew Wiles for his one hundred page proof of this fact.

And yet, what would it be compared to the margin that was too small for Fermat to scribble in his “simple and elegant” proof to the same effect??!!

Ie. abhidamma is not the simplest and most direct proof of the Buddha’s teachings.

The fact that every line I have read of it instantly bores me to tears is indication enough for ME that by not reading it I am saving what precious little time I have this earth.

Sujato - a Pali scholar - admits that learning the abhidamma at one point in his life meant having to unlearn it at a later point in his life.
Well, it is just a forum post.
So, Abhidhamma texts instantly bored you to tears? Well that doesn't mean you can falsify the usefulness of it.

Again, what Ajahn Sujato has to do with your own understanding on the subject? Couldn't you stand for your own statement?
Deleted
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Pulsar »

I will not engage in a game of distraction, where
we sit around and insult each other, to figure out who can come up with the best insults. 
Point is to explore
"Sutta-Based Refutation of Ahidhamma" or "How Buddha dhamma disputes abhidhamma" 
Addressing the great people on this thread,
  • What is the mind element that Abhidhamma introduces, on top of the mind or before the mind? Why does the abhidhamma have a different scheme of conditional relations?  other than the scheme in DO?
BB footnote to Dhatusamyutta writes
"Since according to the abhidhamma scheme of conditional relations, the mind element and its concomitant contact are mutually dependent"
How can you justify this? Does it not go against Buddha's teaching?
Nothing in DO is mutually dependent, except nama-rupa-> consciousness.
BB writes
commentary is compelled to explain these terms in a way that does not place the sutta in contradiction, with Abhidhamma.
Then BB writes that the commentary writes using Abhidamma
  • The functional mind consciousness element is associated with adverting... (the mind door adverting citta)
  • It does not arise in dependence on the contact associated with the first javana in the mind door
(which occurs subsequent to it)
Page 790 of BB version of Samyutta nikaya.
I tried to understand the abhidhamma explanation of DO, since many on this thread praise abhidhamma (robertk, mikenz66, atipattoh, Celsiweir, Dhammawansa, SarthW et al) Yet when questions are raised on abhidhamma these good people avoid the question or give answers like "go read Bodhi's abhidhamma", or "go read Puredhamma" or "i don't have the time". 
DooDoot often says V. Dhammanando is a specialist in Abhidhamma, that no one knows abhidhamma like Dhammanado does on this forum.
Perhaps he can explain the discrepancy.
By trying to figure out DO via abhidhamma i end up getting a headache.
 
If V. Dhammanando is not willing to explain this discrepancy, can Dhammavamsa, atipattoh, Robertk or Celsiwer do so? If they cannot do so, can they pl. stop being hindrances to the smooth progression of the topic? They can begin their own thread and call it "How Abhidhmma beats Buddhadhamma?" This way we can listen to two trends of thoughts, separately and peacefully.

Pl answer me, "Why is there a need for a complicated system of javana?"
that tend to multiply the original misunderstanding created by abhidhamma saying 
  • "the mind element and its concomitant contact are mutually dependent"
For one thing suttas do not have a mind element.
If that was meant as mind, nowhere in the suttas does it say 
  • mind and contact are mutually dependent
Be well, let us set aside the silly games of name calling and address the pressing issues (doctrinal issues)involved.
With love  :candle:
PS today is Juneteenth here, the day the last slave was informed of his freedom, years ago. We who are slaves to suffering, let us begin informing ourselves how to be rid of suffering, by correctly understanding how suffering begins. Pl excuse typos, my ability to correct disappears after 2 hours, even though we are supposed to have 5 hours.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Pulsar »

SarathW claims Abhidhamma and Suttas explain the origination of consciousness in the same manner. He writes
Abhidhamma and Sutta both explain the consciousness exactly the sameway.
Ie: When object Rupa) contact with the sense base (Prasada Rupa) the consciousness arise.
https://puredhamma.net/tables-and-summa ... rial-form/
Let us see,
  • in abhidhamma, with the  meeting of object and sense organ, consciousness is born????
That is not how DO explains the arising of consciousness. It is the image of the object that appears at the sense base, that gets the ball rolling, or the initiation of suffering for the puthujjana.
  • The image of the object that appears in the sense base (eye) causes the consciousness to arise by naming (nama) it.
In fact that is the beginning of consciousness. That naming requires input by the underlying kammic consciousness. Rupasanna??? ...
Rūpasaññā refers to: perception of material qualities, notion of form, not form itself.
Let us forget hifalutin words, and use a simple sutta here.
From SN 22.83 Ananda, a small excerpt in my minimalist english, I am using sutta to dismantle the dhamma propagated by abhidhamma.
Consider below: Suppose one checks out one's own reflection in a clear bowl of water. (this is similar to the reflection of an object that appears in the eye biochemically) eye is like a camera. The person's attention goes to the  reflection, because of grasping.  
In the same way, the notion “I am” occurs because of grasping of form, feeling,  perception,  choices,  and consciousness.
The person grasps the form that appears in the eye, with that grasping naming is born.
  • The person does not grasp the physical face, but grasps the reflection in the mirror, or water, ie a bowl of water or a river or reflection in the eye.
  • With that naming (nama) occurs, almost instantaneously phassa or contact arises.
Phassa indicates that incipient consciousness that has already taken place (by naming), is further solidified by craving.
Sutta nipata identifies it as a seamstress that binds name and form.
  • Many misconceive this initial process.
The aggregates rupa, vedana, sanna, etc would be mental events, but Theravada abhidhamma considers rupa as materiality, a major SNAFU???
  • For Buddha it was all mental, meaning DO or the origination of suffering deals with mental events.
Abhidhamma by their overzealous systems of classification, (without understanding DO) kills the Buddha, or Buddha Dhamma.
This is not the only instance, I will raise other points with time,  where I see incongruities that crept into sutta explanations due to Theravada abhidhamma, even BB admits this at times in his footnotes. This thread is an attempt by the OP to revive the Buddha.
The most outspoken few here claim, for instance one participant writes to OP 
`I know what you are trying to do'
or something to that affect.
Others chime in 'OP is not a Theravadin'.
By calling ourselves such a Theravadin, let us not try to kill the Buddha.  Why overshadow Buddha's teaching with teachings of elders that misconceived the doctrine?
Over Systematisation has killed the simple comprehension of DO.
Buddha has vanished. People go so far as to say Jain first jhana and Buddha's first jhana accomplish the same thing,  or are similar.
Are some folks worried that their livelihood based on Abhidhamma is threatened, metaphorically speaking.
I am a Theravadin if the forum considers
  • "Theras are those monks that prevailed in the first buddhist council such as Ananda and Mahakassapa"
I am not Theravada if this forum considers
  • "Theras ars those monks that cleverly concocted suttas like Mahasatipatthana sutta DN 22, and MN 111, and prevailed at a later buddhist council"
These achieved the goal of misleading large numbers of good buddhists, for generations to come.
With love :candle:
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by robertk »

Pulsar wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:20 pm I am not Theravada if this forum considers
  • "Theras ars those monks that cleverly concocted suttas like Mahasatipatthana sutta DN 22, and MN 111, and prevailed at a later buddhist council"
These achieved the goal of misleading large numbers of good buddhists, for generations to come.
With love :candle:
Is this suggesting that the suttanta is corrupt, as well as Abhidhamma. Is there any part of Theravada that is derived from the Buddha - Vinaya for example?
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Theravada is a trendy name here even in this Abhidhamma refutation thread :woohoo:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:42 amThese 17 sects are schismatic,
only one is non-schismatic.
With the non-schismatic sect,
there are eighteen in all.
Like a great banyan tree,
the Theravāda is supreme,
The Dispensation of the Conqueror,
complete, without lack or excess.
The other sects arose
like thorns on the tree.

— Dīpavaṃsa
You know, you aren't the only one who can cite sectarian sources extolling the virtues of one over many. Are you familiar with the ekayānagāthā from the Sūtra of Dubious Import?
One for Pratyekabuddhas in the sky,
One for the Śrāvakasaṃgha on the sly,
One for Bodhisattvas doomed to die,
One for the Bright One on his Empty Throne
In Jambudvīpa where the Buddhas fly.
One Yāna to rule them all, One Yāna to guide them,
One Yāna to bring them all, to patronize and chide them
In Jambudvīpa where the Buddhas fly.
It's very obscure, you've probably never heard of it. They say that it's Chinese apocrypha anyways.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Pulsar »

robertk wrote 
Is this suggesting that the suttanta is corrupt, as well as Abhidhamma. Is there any part of Theravada that is derived from the Buddha - Vinaya for example?
I am no expert on Vinaya, besides I am not in robes, so vinaya rules do not apply to me,
why bother?
There are more pressing things that I have to attend to 'mindfulness wise' such as the 8-fold path, which does not require vinaya. Therefore  I expect I will be excused from responding to that part of your query.

Regarding the suttas, not even the great scholars can make a uniform decision. Some see
two clearly different trends in the Sutta Pitaka.
There are two srtata of suttas, suttas untouched by abhidhamikas and a second strata very much influenced by abhidhamma.
For instance MN 111 for which we do not find an agama parallel.
There are many suttas that are not corrupt, for example MN 18 Madhupindika sutta, SN 47. 42 Samudaya sutta. SN 12.15 Kaccanagotta.
There are enough suttas uncorrupted. These are sufficient for the sincere seeker, to find an end to suffering.
In SN 47.42 there is absolutely no room for corruption, as you can see, it is perfectly 'bare bones'. 
In fact, Thanissaro commented "it is a very unusual sutta'
Did he mean it was so unlike DN 22?
Its brevity transmits the doctrine perfectly. Look how long DN 22 is,
it is so long that it never gets to say what exactly Buddha intended by 4 establishments.
  • When you ask Is Suttanta corrupt?,
    that is not entirely true, only some suttas are corrupt,
those are the ones into which abhidhamma ideas crept in.
As for abhidhamma if your question is
"Is abhidhamma corrupt?"
I just pointed out in my previous comments Paticca samuppada in Abhidhamma begins with a corruption.
Looks like Buddha and the Theravada abhidhamma did not see eye to eye regarding how suffering originates. The primary intention of the teaching was to teach
  • "How to end suffering".
If one does not perceive the beginning of suffering clearly, how can one end that suffering?
Paticca samuppada is the foundation of the doctrine.
What more can I say?
Be Well! :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:16 pm One for Pratyekabuddhas in the sky,
One for the Śrāvakasaṃgha on the sly,
One for Bodhisattvas doomed to die,
One for the Bright One on his Empty Throne
In Jambudvīpa where the Buddhas fly.
One Yāna to rule them all, One Yāna to guide them,
One Yāna to bring them all, to patronize and chide them
In Jambudvīpa where the Buddhas fly.
“Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul”

:tongue:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

Post by mikenz66 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:25 am
Pondera wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:23 am Who cares about these endless, documented battles?
When you study Buddhist history you realise that we reenact many of them on this page ;)
Bhikkhu Sujato gave a rather informal talk about Buddhist History last Friday, which is recorded here:
http://www.berrywood.de/mic/
18.06.2021 – At Harris Park with Bhante Sujato – Breath meditation. Dhamma talk on history, facts, and stories: how Buddhism evolved into different schools as a response to the needs and challenges of the respective times and places.
Talk starts around 35 minutes.

He puts some emphasis on "learning from history", as opposed to "projecting our opinions on the past".
Often Buddhist seem to assume that nothing has happened in the last 2500 years. That the Buddha taught, and "this is what the Buddha taught". And somehow it got from there to here. And we're not really interested in why or how that happened .... many things have happened, and obviously those things that have happened have shaped the message ....
I think that if one really wants to understand "what the Buddha actually taught", and particularly "what the Buddha actually meant", it's not quite as simple as just reading through the available translations that we have and working out one's own interpretation/commentary/abhidhamma, void of all considerations of context and history.


:heart:
Mike
Post Reply